tail end, people leaving prison. i was wondering if there could be anything done to reduce incarceration rates -- he spoke about the disparity among rates. did you address any neighborhood, segregation issues, issues related to education, employment, that could perhaps prevent incarceration? glenn: sure, and i think there is a fundamental thing that would have to be part of a broader national discussion about this area of policy. not the mandate of our committee to talk about housing or what happens if you improve the schools, what about employment -- we are not investing in our cities, etc.. that was way beyond our mandate. it would involve speculation on my part. but i will just go ahead and speculate for a moment. >> thank you. >> fix the schools. >> i would say that that is not speculation from our work.

>> happy to learn that. x in fact i think i actually showed you some of the slides. this report makes it scathingly crystal-clear what the relationship is between education and incarceration. right? so, therefore, again, it is beyond our charge to say how we are going to do that, but i keep using the word ammunition which is not a good use -- not a good word to use but the information is certainly in this report that makes it clear that if you don't to go to prison or who goes to prison are the people that have the least access to those kinds of opportunities and education is a crucial one. that social policy assessing community need is certainly flamed in terms that trained in

terms of declining incarceration rates, but our historical chapter makes it clear that it was not accidental that the communities most affected by incarceration were those that already suffered quite severe, as we say, racial segregation economic decline, and lack of opportunity and also serious educational lack of opportunity. >> there is a conceptual point here that i don't think should be lost -- we are already doing social policy when we do prison policy. it's a part of social policy. one way of looking at this, and this is just me speaking, not for the committee, we are dealing with the consequences of inadequate human development in some parts of our population. ok? i mean, people are committing crimes and acting in ways that are socially just up to that have to be responded to, but in large part these people who we are looking at in our prisons

half of them have some sort of mental health disorder addiction or something like that , on the whole very poorly educated, they are not realizing their full human potential. we can respond to that in a number of ways and the punitive response is a number -- one of a number. we don't necessarily have to choose between one and the other if we understand that there is a connection between the two. no one is talking about getting rid of all prisons, but if our only response to social dysfunction is punitive it's not very good for the society. that was my opinion but i thought it should add it. >> with what's outside our charge, the prison reform problem has brought the general problems to the inner-city and are back on the agenda in a way it was not two years ago.

there are many projects underway right now to come up with a new agenda for the attorney general. i'm involved with two of those myself. so, this is an important question that will involve a different kind of discourse with programs that have ways of performance is, the income programs, various ways to deal with the problem. that was outside of our charge. what we really did here was show that a large part of the social problem hasn't been solved yet. we have got a long ways to go. >> i am afraid that we are out of time. the final remark would be that even though we said many times up here today that this is the other charge implying that there was not enough done in this report, there is almost 500 pages of incredible data and information that we hope can utilize and that we hope can be productive in your individual

organizations and groups. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> just after the campaign rally tonight, your phone calls

tweets, and facebook comments in reaction to senator sanders announcement. and at 8 p.m., a discussion on free speech and campaign spending, including the university of north carolina law professor and executive who works for the coke others. >> one of the questions about freedom of speech is -- is it a value in and of itself or is it there because it is designed to promote democratic decision-making? depending on your view on that you might come out to different kinds of results on some of these campaign finance cases. there is something the matter with a system where the first and you ask about a candidate is -- how much money can she raise? a system in which somebody has to sit in a room 20 hours per day dialing for dollars in order to be competitive. or system in which poor people do not really have any access to the decisions being made. that's troublesome. it's troublesome also for

government to do any regulation, i have to agree with that. so, you have a deep conflict going on there and there is no easy result on either side. the first thing i tell my students is that if you think this is an easy decision on either side, rethink it. >> my point of view is that people should be able to give money anonymously or on the record. remember, the bill of rights, i'm going to paraphrase the late great justice william brennan which i am sure he will be very flattered by but they sickly the bill of rights, the framers did not lay out what our rights were. they made sure that government could not infringe on those rights because they were presumed to be pre-existing. my point of view is that to the extent that people want to disclose -- there are a lot of disclosure laws the compelled disclosure. trust me, i was talking before we got out of here but if charles koch and david coke are pretty much credited or blamed

for every single penny that was spent on a conservative or libertarian cause, issue, or candidate -- there is no dark money as we talk to them, in my opinion, but the reality is that there is a cost to disclosure. from a cost benefit analysis in my opinion i don't quite see who really pays attention to this other than activists on each side that want to harass intimidate, create list. we have seen it over time and i have seen both sides do it. i know they do it on the side with the coke others, there have been a number of death threats i'm not asking for sympathy or empathy but i am saying that it comes at a cost and who benefits from the disclosure? >> you can see the entire discussion on free speech and campaign spending tonight at 8 p.m. eastern. a quick reminder that bernie sanders presidential campaign announcement is live today on c-span at 6 a.m. eastern followed by your reaction on the phone and on social media.

this summer book tv will cover book festivals from around the country with top nonfiction authors and books. this weekend we are live at book expo america in new york city where the show -- where they ith a showcase upcoming books. and we are putting our three-hour live in depth program with lawrence wright and your phone calls. near the end of june watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival from the franklin d. roosevelt reading library. in the middle of july we are live at the harlem book fair the nations flagship african-american literary event but author interviews and panel discussions. at the beginning of september we're live from the nations capital with the national books festival. that is just a few of the events this summer on "book tv." up next on c-span, a discussion on the nuclear negotiations with iran. we will hear from ambassadors of

three of the countries that are part of the negotiations, great britain, france, and germany their ambassadors spoke earlier today in washington, d.c. this is one hour and a half. >> good morning, everyone. i am the executive vice president or i he atlantic council and it is my pleasure to welcome our dismissed speakers. french ambassadors gerard araud, british ambassador sir peter westmacott, and german ambassador peter wittig. it is a pleasure to host all of

the other same time about the iran nuclear deal. i would like to welcome all of you in the room and everyone joining us online and through the tv broadcast. we want to encourage everyone to join the conversation using the hashtag #ac iran. the iran task force was established to explore peaceful solutions with iran. the iran task force looks at -- it has published on this issues more than one dozen issued briefs and reports. in 2013, the task force released recommendations for u.s.-iran policy to foreshadow the current path of negotiations, which we will discuss today. we are and what could be the final stages of nuclear negotiations with iran. negotiators from the u.s., britain, french, -- france germany, india, russia -- the p5+1, are working on terms that would place long-term curbs on nuclear armament from iran in return for relief on a number sanctions.

this showcases the clickable of the transatlantic partnership in addressing the most prominent global challenges. we are especially delighted to be joined by the ambassadors from the e3 nations, france, germany, and the united kingdom, to discuss this herculean demotic effort which in large part began with their nations over a decade ago. i would like to invite up barbara slavin, a senior fellow here. she has largely guided the work on iran at the council and can be credited for bringing together this discussion today.

ms. slavin: thank you for coming. i am delighted that everyone has returned from the holiday with an interest in the subject. we have been trying out the atlantic council to bring the three e-3 ambassadors here for some time. i think the role of the countries has not been properly recognized in the iran

negotiation. it is fair to say it you three invented iran nuclear diplomacy in 2003. the u.s. administration at the time, the george w. bush administration, had a policy of of no acknowledged diplomatic contacts with iran. there were some, but they were secret and not substantive. it was britain, france, and germany that to get upon themselves to deal with the issue of iran's nuclear program after various facilities were revealed in 2002. a quick runthrough before i turn to our excellent speakers and introduce them. the bush administration policy toward iran at the time, according to phil gordon, an official in the clinton and obama administrations, was one of "malevolent neglect." when i was doing research on a book for you the u.s. and iran i was told that john bolton once fell asleep or pretended to while he was hosting members of the e-3, who were giving him a raving on the negotiations. he was the under secretary of state in charge of

nonproliferation at the time but not interested in talking with iran. the policy changed towards the end. we will hear about it and about where we are today. it is fair to say without the e-3, there would be no process with huron and they would not have been the progress we see today. with that introduction, let me introduce our wonderful guest. speaking first will be the ambassador of france, gerard araud, who has held numerous positions and the ministry of foreign affairs, including director for strategic affairs security and disarmament. investor to israel. permanent representative to u.n. ambassador araud has specialized knowledge of the middle east and strategic and security issues. pertinent for our purposes, he was the french negotiator on the iranian nuclear issue from 2006 to 2009. next to him is peter wittig, ambassador of germany.

he also served as permanent representative to the u.n. he served in spain as private secretary to the foreign minister. director-general for the united nations and global issues at the foreign office in berlin. sir peter westmacott has been britain's ambassador here since 2002. he previously served as counselor for the political and public affairs in the mid-1990's. he has been the ambassador to france and turkey and have postings in tehran and brussels as well as serving as foreign and commonwealth office's directors for the america. i would ask each ambassadors speak briefly. i know there are a lot of questions and expertise. ambassador araud will start with

a history of the talks, as he lived through it. he will talk about how we went from malevolent neglect to active participation on the part of the obama administration and then ambassador wittig will talk about the lausanne understanding of april 2. ambassador westmacott will look at the regional understandings of this. ambassador araud: one i was told i was to talk about history, i was going to stop by cyrus the great, but i was told that may be too long. in 2002, when a major iranian nuclear, clandestine i'm program was revealed, which we did not have any identifiable civilian significance, -- my motto was not speak saying "i,", but i is the director, directed the letter of the ministers, the european ministers.

our goal, i have to say that at that time, we had the choice between having the signature of u.k. or of russia. if we put in the text that we were asking the suspension of enrichment, we had russia but not the u.k. if we had put in stopping the enrichment, we had the u.k. but not russia. france and germany -- it was not

easy. it was spring of 2003, after the iraqi invasion, we decided that we wanted to have the u.k. because we knew it would not be an agreement if at some moments, we could not have the trust, confidence of the united states. at the time, john bolton was under secretary at strategic affairs, came to paris. we present of the letter that was also with the israelis. we had sent consultation. we got from both of them a yellow light. under the condition that we will be totally transparent to both. and we were. as ambassador to israel, i was the channel to inform the israeli authorities of where we were, what we wanted. i think it was extremely productive. the negotiations started between the three countries and huron and fall of 2003. the iranians really suspended the enrichment activities.

some people said that the opportunity was missed at this point. that would be for historians to say. but everything stopped in 2005 when mahmoud ahmadinejad was elected. between 2005 and 2012, there was no negotiation whatsoever. as the french negotiator between 2006 and 2009, -- we went, the five of us. the american negotiator went with us. we want to tehran in 2008 with a letter signed by the six ministers. we made a lot of different proposals to try and avoid the question of suspending everything. at no moment between 2005 and 2012, the iranians even cared about the negotiation. there was no negotiation. the first hour was about cyrus the great, the second was about -- the third hour was about the rights of the iranian people. that is the reality. in 2006, the americans, the russians, and the chinese joined us, which led to the first

resolution. july, 2006. it was to suspend the enrichment. they did not do it. they were the different resolutions of sanctions after. 1803, 1835, 1929. the russians and the chinese, it was important they were with us. we reached the point of 2012. that is the first conclusion that we true.

in 2012, iran took the decision of negotiating. negotiations started, or restarted, in 2012. i stopped here. ms. slavin: maybe a tad more. you say 2012. mahmood, jim dowd was not elected until 2013. what changed? ambassador araud: no, i meant 2013. sorry. ms. slavin: obviously, we will go more into this in the q&a. ambassador wittig, 2013, a new team that speaks english, does not insist on dredging through past iranian grievances. interim agreement? ambassador wittig: they spoke english in 2006 also. [laughter] ms. slavin: you've got the interim agreement november 2013 and then the lausanne understanding. tell us what you can about that and where we are now in negotiations.

we have about four weeks to go. ambassador wittig: thank you for having me here. it is great to be here at the atlantic council. april 2, we concluded, after lots of months of intense negotiations, a political agreement on the parameters of a potential deal, final deal, with iran. the framework is a potentially hopeful that -- step forward. i have to add a notion of caution at the beginning. the most difficult task may lay ahead of us in the coming weeks. are we sure that we will get in this final deal, no.

but we conduct negotiations with a lot of determination yet without naivete and a clear eye. the task is to negotiate a comprehensive solution. the challenge is to transform political statements, basically, into reliable -- i would also say waterproof -- provisions that leave no doubt about the duties of the parties involved. as you know, in this kind of endeavor, the devil is in the details. therefore, details matter. we have to, with a comprehensive agreement with a lot of annexes. it is not only a political but also a technical negotiation.

so far, since the second of april, negotiations have been preceding at a rather slow pace on an expert level. there are a lot of gaps and brackets. gaps to be filled in rockets to be removed in the document. not surprising to you, it two issues are in the particular focus. first, the timing of the sanctions relief for iran. the details of the verification and monitoring mechanisms. those are our major topics. lausanne laid the groundwork for three major goals vis-a-vis iran. first, strict limitations

enrichment for 10 years. a reduction from 19 thousand to -- they agreed to not enrich the young 3.67%. and -- for 15 years. and reduce the stockpile of low enriched uranium two 300 kilograms for the next 15 years. on top of that, iran would have no other or no new enrichment facility for the duration of the agreement.

the second goal is the modernization of iraq. it would seal the plutonium pact. lausanne provides the possibility to modernize the existing heavywater facility in iraq, rebuild, redesign it, so there could be no production of weapons grade plutonium. the third goal, and key to an agreement, is iran would be submitted and subjected to an unprecedented transparency and

monitoring regime to make sure that any covert program that iran might the engaging in what be detected and strong procedures for intrusive inspections and accordance with the additional protocol of the nonproliferation treaty and beyond would ensure the international community knows what is going on in iran. old be the duties for us in this agreement, if it happens -- in return for iran's compliance there would be sanctions relief of the u.n., eu, and the u.s. gradually. that is important. that would be in a economy trade, and finance. iran needs some time to start the implementation of this agreement. in the best case, sanctions relief would not happen before

the end of this year. in addition, this agreement would provide guarantees that sanctions could be put back in place if iran violates the agreement -- the so-called snap back provision. what are the prospects we see for this deal? for iran, this would be a significant shift. it would be deprived of the possibility to produce a nuclear weapon and at the same time, it would give iran the opportunity to adjust its relations to the international community. we believe it could also prevent

a nuclear arms race in the region. a note of caution again. do we think that we can trust iran with an agreement? i think the answer is no. our motto would be distrust but verify. trust has been broken and needs to be restored. that is why we can only accept a regime with a long-lasting monitoring mechanism. do we condone iran's behavior in the region? absolutely not. we maintain sanctions that are not immediately related to this agreement. the arms embargo is an example. and we would continue to urge iran to play a very constructive role on its regional conflicts. in our mind, syria, lebanon,

yemen. in concluding, we believe that the alternatives to our diplomatic approach are on attractive. if diplomacy fails, then the sanctions regime may unravel. the universal sanctions regime. we would probably see iran again enriching as it has done before negotiations started. it is clear the problems we have with iran will not go away immediately the deal. it has the potential to engage in a phase of constructive conflict resolution with iran. we believe it serves our security interest in europe, the u.s. security interests, the regional security interests. and believe me, israel's

security is always on our mind. in a nutshell, a a negotiated satisfactory deal is our best thing. ms. slavin: i was a little surprised when you said sanctions relief would not until the end of the year. is that because it will take iran that long to implement the key steps or is this something being negotiated? the iranians say sanctions relief will be immediate upon this implementation. ambassador westmacott: thank you for giving us this opportunity to sit on stage. i would not say like three monkeys, but we are three colleagues. gerard mentions the way the iranians go back to cyrus the great. when you talk to iranians,

history is always important. but it was cyrus the great who liberated -- a story we reminded ourselves when we went to visit major cities a year ago. it is worth as being conscious of it as well. the regional dimension and the point at which barbara picked up, i would like to echo what ambassador wittig says on where we are now. the importance of the framework we have. the quality of that deal. i would add between now and the end of june, there are a great deal of details to be completed. it is not yet in the bag. we are clear that if we cannot get the right deal, there will not be one. this is significantly better. the framework we have now. in the judgment of our governments that of any alternatives out there diplomacy is extremely important. it has taken a long time to get this far.

the regional dimension -- this was a big part of the g-7 summit arrangement which president obama posted just the other day, not least because it is clear that a number of this sunni-arab regional governments are concerned about the implications of this deal, if it is finalized. i would say none of us are doing this on blind trust. we will distrust and verify. this is the best of the options out there and represents the best framework we have been able to come up with to ensure that for at least a decade, there will not be any iranian breakout to nuclear weapons. iran would therefore be subject to the provisions of the protocol iran will sign. this is something which gives us a chance for minimizing the risk

of proliferation of nuclear weapons and introducing a degree of regional stability. we need to reassure the regionals, others around there concerned that other aspects of bad behavior by iran, which are separate from the nuclear issue we are negotiating on. it will not be a carte blanche for the iranians to continue to destabilize the region through proxies or other activity. it is our hope, we are not naive on this, that we can finalize the deal with the iranians that will be a spinoff in terms of other areas of regional concern. we would like to see iran doing less in terms of supporting

groups which destabilize governments. that would be a significant prize. the fact we are working on the nuclear thing does not mean we are closing our eyes to the other aspects of what is going on in the region and which concerns us. regional reassurance on security issues and full implementation of the deal, if there is one which we conclude by the end of june. on your question of what about implementation, i think it is clear that sanctions list will take place when there is implementation of the agreement. that depends on how long it

takes for there to be the understanding that iran has full compliance. we do not know what day that will be. each side is busy explaining why what it agreed to so far is a good thing for its own public opinion. that is what negotiations are about. everyone has to return with something there are proud of. no one will return home and say -- the important thing is to focus on what is going on in the negotiations themselves, which have to remain largely confidential for the moment to ensure we get the right deal and ensure there is full compliance and as a result of that, you can move to suspension of sanctions and so on. there are different elements of sanctions. there is a u.s. one, european ones, a u.n. one. we need to keep in mind, the reason we have come so far is because there has been transatlantic unity on application of the sanctions. we had gone this far on that, we now need to make diplomacy successful. ms. slavin: let me ask more about unity, not just with the

united states but also among the e3. ambassador araud, your prime minister has a certain tension for reviewing details of the negotiations at certain times that perhaps have not always been helpful. the other day, he said iranians are insisting on a 24 day waiting period before allegations of cheating can be investigated. is this helpful to reveal these little bits and are you always on the same page in terms of the negotiations? ambassador araud: of course it is helpful because it is my minister. [laughter] ambassador araud: i think in any country, and especially this country, one's country takes an initiative. it is supposed to be based on a good analysis of the situation. when one country says a mistake, it is out of good intention. one another country commits a mistake, it is out of cynicism or for reckless reasons.

to your utter disbelief, i will tell you a secret. the french foreign policy is neither more or less -- it means that what we are doing is a very technical and political issue, based on our own analysis. in the negotiation, even our technical experts disagree from time to time. you have the ministers and the mamas and the nuclear experts discussing the issues. the ministers and thomas do not understand a word of what is exchanged, of course. but basically, there is a disagreement. the negotiations are extremely collocated technically. they are also complicated because you have a lot of different issues.

the number of types of centrifuges are linked to the stockpile you will announce. i could multiply the examples of that. it means it is likely we will not have an agreement before the end of june or even after june. the iranians are obviously not negotiating to get an agreement shortly. they want to push the issues to the ministers the way they did previously. we agreed to have a drama at the end of june. doors slammed, i am leaving to iran, no way, and so on, to try and get the best deal. even if we get the best deal after words, you have to translate into the technical aspect. maybe we could have a sort of "the end" to the negotiation.

>> can i add something to the unity. it is hard to exaggerate the cohesion we as europeans have on every level. our experts meet on a weekly basis or on a phone, sometimes on a daily basis. our leaders need on iran. as you said, the three europeans were at the genesis, the inception, of this whole process. i think it also deserves mention that russia and china were very constructive partners over the last however many months it was. since the beginning of negotiations in november of 2013.

that may be came to the surprise of some, because you could have feared that the ukraine crisis would have contaminated those negotiations around iran. that did not happen. there was unity among the five plus. another element in the genesis that deserves mention is that there was a courageous step by the american administration to engage directly with iran. that was a catalyst. it was not self-evident that after those long years of a vacuum in relations with iran, the administration would engage directly. i think those elements helped forge that unity and make that progress. ms. slavin: any thoughts on the unity of the three? ambassador westmacott: i agree. ms. slavin: one other and then i will open to the audience. the impact of the sanctions on european economies. as you pointed out, ambassador westmacott, it is a fact that

the europeans agreed to stop buying iranian oil, by and large, stop investing in iran, cut act trade massively, that got us to where we are in many respects. how much of an impact has that had on your economies? if for some reason, there is no deal, can you hold the line on sanctions? can they persist in the eu given the eagerness of many of your companies to go back. >> the u.s. companies as well. ms. slavin: they have other problems. ambassador araud: not more or less than the european companies. ambassador westmacott: i think iran is a country with immense potential, and lots of areas. people say to me, i cannot understand why you guys are negotiating with those iranians. that you do not seen many iranian shiites that she has stepping onto planes and blowing them up. but your onions want to come with a green card and make $1

million. i think there is a great deal of potential of that sort. if you go to iran today, you find that there is an appetite for a lot of western products. they have to pay a high price because of the rates. things come across seven borders. it is not surprising that a lot of companies would like to do business in iran. it has great potential resources, and natural wealth. at the right moment, companies will start looking again at that. it is hard to be clear about what happens to sanctions in the event of no deal. if there is no deal because the iranians simply will not live up to or implement the broad parameters we agreed to in the framework, then i think we carry on with the sanctions regime and in certain areas it may be right to raise the level the sanctions. at the same time, if we were to walk away or if congress were to make it impossible for the agreement to be implemented or whatever, the international community would be reluctant to contemplate a ratcheting up further of the sanctions against

iran. my senses we are not far away from the higher watermark of sanctions against the iranian economy. what happens next depends on what happens. if it is clear that this was done on bad faith and the iranians were not appear to have the transparency and inspection of sites and so on, we are in one territory. it becomes much more, located if it is the other where we say we do not want to do this. we have seen countries that do not respect the embargo.

but russia, china, turkey and so on for buying certain things from iran, we will probably see more sanctions breaches, unless it was clearly iran's responsibility. ms. slavin: the impact on germany has been significant. ambassador wittig: yes, we have long, traditional relations with iran pre-khamenei. we had strong economic ties. the sanctions regime was hurting our businesses a lot. especially the big companies just pulled out of iran, like the automakers. so it did hurt.

that is a fact i echo what peter has said. the potential for an agreement is also the potential for all of our economies. it would benefit our economies -- not that we would rush back into iran. we would be cautious. the government advises our companies actively to hold back. but it could carry a huge potential, and only for us, but also for the young iranian generation. they are looking to the west. it might entice or trigger some internal change in iran. ms. slavin: it is my understanding that what comes off from the u.s. side are the secondary sanctions that inhibit foreign companies from investing in iran. using american companies are

eager but they will be largely shut out? ambassador araud: like in dubai. the automakers, we were providing 50% of the iran in market. all of the gears were made in one small city in france. the city was devastated by the sanctions. a small city in the east of france. also, our oil company had made the strategy choice of investing in iran. this company was, of course, lost its investments. it hurt, but we held firm the last 10 years. there is no reason we will not do it in the coming years. i will open. please wait for the microphone. state your name. we start here. ask a question. >> thank you for putting on this

excellent event and thank you to the three ambassadors for being here. i am from the national in running counsel. it has been mentioned there was unity and they e-3 and with the u.s. that is difficult to doubt. i want to ask you about a hypothetical. assume there is a deal late june. the president has to reported in two asked to the senate in five days. the senate has 30 days to review and cast a vote. say there is a resolution to reject the deal and it passes. the president has the obligation to veto it.

what will be e-3 do between the resolution of rejection passing and the president putting in his veto and facing a challenge to that? ms. slavin: who would like to take that? ambassador westmacott: i will make a brief comment. you're getting ahead of the game. what we focus on now is trying to get this deal. we are not there yet. when we get there, we will see what the different elements are to follow. my government has not yet worked out what the answer to your hypothetical would be, but we have to take this in stages. the important point is to bear in mind the long journey we embarked upon. can we now get this over the finishing line at the end of june? we hope so, but it depends on different elements. the president's commitment has been clear to sending this to the dnc's congress and the people and so on. we take of us in one stage at a time. it may well be that at the state we get a deal, there is something the rest of us can do

to help explain this is not just a u.s.-iran deal, but something the international community in general and the p5+1 in particular, the three representatives here, our party to, fully involved, and what it to be made a success. but i cannot go further into the area of hypothesis you want to lead us at this stage. ms. slavin: did you have a question? >> i want to ask about the -- ms. slavin: bring the other one over, if you would.

>> is this better? i will ask a question which will give you the opportunity to get in trouble with your governments. we have to think what if's. assuming the deal does not go through and blame can be laid legitimately in iran's door what do you see as viable options? you know in israel and the congress, there are going to be loud voices calling for some

sort of military action. is the deal can go through and be verified, what opportunities do you see traded in the middle east, much of which is in chaos, but could benefit from this agreement? >> in a sense, the sanctions would remain enforced. the questions would be to increase the role of sanctions even if, as peter said, we are close to the high mark of the sanctions. as for what would happen after an agreement, in a very hypothetical way, looking at the crystal ball, my personal bet is that the iranians will one to prove that it does not mean this changes in their policy. we could have an outburst of anti-american rhetoric a few months after the agreement. the second element is we have been careful to disassociate the nuclear negotiation from other issues. it is very important. if you start to make a big deal --

it starts to be very dangerous. the nuclear issue, as such. after that, you have the other geopolitical issues. i am not sure if those are linked to the nuclear issue. they are linked to the fact all of the region has been geopolitically distraught, first by the invasion of iraq. iraq has played a major hold for saddam for -- the crisis in the sunni world. it means that basically, nature abhors a vacuum. iran is moving forward because there is nothing to stop it. i do not think there is a linkage between the nuclear issues and the geopolitical crisis of the middle east. but that is personal. >> elise with cnn. i would like to follow up a little and tie in what you talk

about the unity of the p5+1. obviously, you have gone to great lengths to keep a lot of the geopolitical issues out of the discussion, but i wonder if you could talk to the extent that this long baggage between the united states and iran whether it plays into it at all. at the beginning of the process, the u.s. was really, even before your current governments, the u.s. was the one being so tough. i heard diplomats from one or more of your countries speak privately about how the u.s. is the one that wants the deal the most. given all that, given that president obama definitely wants a deal with this government, the trial of washington post journalist jason rezaian, how does that play into the

negotiations and tone of the room? ms. slavin: does the u.s. want it more than you? >> we all want it, but not at a huge price. if we do not get a satisfactory deal, there will not be ideal. we are focusing on the four or five weeks ahead of us. and then all the hypotheticals afterwards. i want to elaborate a little on the connection to other issues. you can kill this deal if you link it to extraneous issues. what iran does in yemen, does it cease to support hezbollah, etc. if you link it to these issues this is what will kill it. no linkage, but there is a

potential and a successful deal to improve relations with iran and to encourage iran to be a more responsible stakeholder in the region. that potential we want to explore once the deal is done. ms. slavin: i am going to go to the back and then come up front. wait for the mike. >> thank you. dale kimball. ambassador araud, i am glad you went into the history. i want to ask about that too clarify the purpose of the resolutions that were passed at the security council regarding the suspension of enrichment. there is a perception that those resolutions were designed or intended to wired iran to stop forever, uranium enrichment. as i understand, the purpose was to facilitate a long-term solution that respects a peaceful program.

could you elaborate about the purpose of the resolutions which is something many in washington i do not think understand. this is an issue for the future of negotiations -- updating the resolutions. could you give us an update on whether that continues to be an issue? are you confident that will be resolved in time to facilitate a solution? ambassador araud: when we started the resolutions or sanctions, the first in 1737 what we were doing was to change the calculation of the regime. really, basically, to convince the regime, for its own survival in a sense, that the program was becoming too costly. the iranians have spent billions of dollars on these programs.

on the program which does not make any -- does not have any civilian meaning. when we went to tehran in 2008 the five political directors, we met a lot of iranians. the sanctions were only starting to work, but the economic situation was so inept that the situation was serious. it has only worsened. of course, there is no evidence that the sanctions have changed effectively the cancellation of the regime. from the beginning, i have always been convinced that, at the end of the day, we would have to keep some enrichment capability in iran. in negotiation, each side has to be able to come back home saying i am the winner.considering the investment

into the enrichment but also symbolic, there should be some capability in iran. after that the challenge is to make it innocuous. that is what we are trying to do. during these negotiations. >> the lady in front here. speaker: i have a question. regarding the amount of mistrust between iran and the international community, how do you think that the international could negotiate and be able to reset the machinery? it is almost impossible. could you give us a hint?

ambassador araud: this is a machine of transparency. we will have eyes on what iran is doing. we are confident that the regime can be devised that would detect any covert operation that iran would be engaging in. the regime in -- is key for any agreement. next thank you. it is going slowly in trying to draft the deal. you anticipated some

brinksmanship and late nights. do you think -- can you talk about why it is going so slowly? and related to that, do you think that are they trying to dominate the process, are the iranians waiting for the u.s. is that your sense? there is a dynamic in negotiations. you need the pressure of timelines to facilitate the heavy lifting of issues. both sectors are worker. i am not particularly worried. this is fairly normal. as i said before, we have a

difficult path to walk on. we have tremendously complicated technical issues to clarify and so small wonder that we're not making a lot of fast progress right now. it is a prediction on what will happen by the end of june. it is a feeling of the pulse rate now. i am still confident we can overcome those detergents is of views though have right now. >> before we take the next question, i neglected to mention that i went to thank the fund for their generous support and also our regrets that stu

eisenstadt not able to be herewas today because he is in europe. >> over the weekend we heard new statements from iran that senior scientists would not be allowed to be interviewed. we heard that military facilities would not be open to inspections in that links back to an issue that we have not talked about here which is the possibility -- possible military dimensions of the program and the iaea aspect which seems to have gotten no progress at all during the negotiations that have been going on separately. there is some concern among some of us that that issue, whether or not the iranians were in fact designing a missile or in nuclear warhead would be papered over. there is some kind of

calculation that will be made or equation that will be made that will allow them not to have to make the admission about what they were doing in order to set a baseline for the inspection program that you are talking about. can you check about how possible military dimension, aspect of this feeds into the talks are now because there is no progress on that aspect right now. >> i will add to that that the deputy negotiator said something about managed access to nuclear facilities which was in contradiction to what the supreme leader and others had said. >> i feel like writing an article about what is a negotiation. that is chest banging.

each side says i am not going to cave in. that is my demands. i do not think we have to attach too much importance. we are at the beginning. they say we demand a lifting of the sanctions. it will not happen. maybe an agreement. there is not a lifting of the sanctions. we are very keen on having an element of the agreement. we not going to let the pmd issue [indiscernible] the negotiations for the movement obviously, the negotiation is not moving

forward. it means that they made the calculation that it would be easier to get their concessions from the ministers. negotiations are also theatrics. so do not listen to the outside. there will be something on pmd. its side will have to able [indiscernible] >> maybe to your hint of the --

correcting. he was mindful of the additional protocol and -- of the mdp. i think they are mindful. >> there is the additional protocol. and an agreement on a joint commission that ensures there is proper inspections and our own agreement separate from the additional protocol. this is important. there has to be a proper inspection if we have reason to believe that we will be able to do so. this is being discussed in

detail. this will be an important part of the negotiation. >> the gentleman in the middle who has been patient. >> speaking of the art of diplomacy, the walk back on the allowance of managed inspection, does this dispel the notion that has been perpetuated for a while that the iranian negotiators are perpetually boxed in by anything this supreme leader tweets or says? is there clearly some give their? -- there? >> they have their own public opinions with their own

divisions the same way you have in the u.s. and they have to take into account the settlement the same way the u.s. administration has to take into account. no negotiation is really simply technical or political without public opinion which is the background of the situation. >> the gentleman here. >> thank you. i am with kurdistan's 24 hour news injured -- agency. on the situation of human rights in iran particularly for the

minority which is the kurdish people. do you expect the situation will improve or will there be a blind eye for [indiscernible] >> a general comment. all of our governments remain concerned about the human rights situation in iran. there are things which are done there that worry us for different reasons. sometimes it is about the way individuals are treated. sometimes it is the way different minorities are treated. there are elements of a jewish community in the area that are able to thrive. there are a number of respects that iran has a way to go.

i am not an expert regarding the kurdish minority but this is an area in which we would look to iran, especially if we are able to conclude this agreement to be moving very much more in the direction of international behavior that we witness at the moment. >> iran could start by letting our calling go. that would be a great story there. -- start right there. >> i was reassured when you indicated that russia and china are being helpful but i am wondering in the final stages of negotiations how helpful is russia actually being especially in light of their decision to resume the holistic missile shipments to iran? one would have thought to be helpful this would have been held out as the carrot if

negotiations were successful and yet they have gone ahead and done this. there are rumblings in the russian press about that in fact a nuclear deal with -- would be a great thing for russia and rumblings that if the west does not -- is not understanding on ukraine, russia can be less helpful on iran. from the older generation that sees what happens when the russian press is not accidental. would anyone care to comment on rush motives? they appreciate it. >> to be very straightforward we thought the decision to deliver those kind of weapons were not helpful at all for the process. and they were a deplorable decision. those who, let me remind you this was not a violation of the

arms embargo. it was, we believe, a decision that was not helpful. at the same time again, it has always been important. the russians and the chinese -- they are perfect boiled negotiators. they are doing their part and working with us. that is for the system of weapons. the russians have taken -- [indiscernible] they told us which means they did not want to [indiscernible]

china on these -- this negotiation. >> these weapons will not go. it is probably more of a carrot. back there. >> is the position of the west credible? the position of the west seems to me if you do not do this deal we will continue the sanctions or enhance the sanctions but i have heard today how this may be the high water mark of sanctions, businesses do not like the sanctions. do we have a credible threat in the negotiation? >> yes. >> a think it depends on how negotiations break down, if they break down. it -- if it is perceived to be the fault of the u.s. congress or others on this side than the

sanctions regime will unravel probably pretty quickly. if it is perceived to be the iranians walking way from a good deal, presumably there would be some sanctions. is that true for the russians is that true for the chinese? >> i guess i agree with you. it depends on who is to blame. if there is no deal. and i think we should not harbor any illusions about the international sanctions regime. many of the emerging countries would consider congress blocking this deal as maybe as a trigger to at least question the present sanction regime. i would see a certain danger if

the blame game and the international community comes to the conclusion that it is not the iran that is to blame. and the international solidarity that has been quite strong in the recent years would be -- would erode. that is a scenario. in legal terms, no. the security council could be lifted because of our vote. the sanctions -- [indiscernible] they will remain in place and the u.s. sanctions will remain in place and the eu sanctions we need a unanimous vote. the sanctions will remain in any case. the most effective sanctions are usually the u.s. sanctions

because of their [indiscernible] they are afraid of the u.s. sanctions. >> have they started drafting a new un security council resolution are not yet? i do not know. i think there is a draft somewhere i read. i think there is a draft. one of the questions is about the sanctions. what you call snapback. the way sanctions will be imposed if the iranians are not respecting their commitments. >> here in the front.

>> my -- it seems that france and the [indiscernible] has partnership. have you been able to persuade the gcc that the nuclear deal will enhance the security and -- or and undermine? >> there was a summit organized by president obama. i think it was a very useful initiative because it is true that we have to give the assurances about their security. it is -- if they need security assurances and not only because of the nuclear deal but because their geopolitical situation, i was referring to which has given to iran the initiative.

they basically so it in iraq in we are seeing it also elsewhere. the methods that which was some's summarized was very useful one and it is basically also what we told her friends from the gulf countries. we consider it a security requirement and that we want to play a role in it. i have opened [indiscernible] we have had for a long commitment towards the countries but i think their concerns are

going well beyond the nuclear issue. in a sense it is more the geopolitical situation which is a source of concern especially since they think [indiscernible] if the sanctions are partially or totally lifted could be used by iran for pursuing its adventures in their part of the world. they need insurance because of that. >> given that there is so much concern over recruitment by the islamic state in europe and given that iran is playing probably the leading role in

iraq and indirectly in syria. does i.s. figure, i know the nuclear talks are separate. does it contribute at all to the urgency or eagerness on the part of the three, with respect to wanting to establish a better relationship with iran to do with this question. what has happened recently is not a great story. and iran have that their own reasons to push back. they were potentially allies of hours against al qaeda. probably because our diplomacy did not succeed back in those days. we found ied's some years after

that. those sunni extremist groups, al qaeda, isil, they are passionately anti-shia and anti-iran so iran has their own reasons to fight back. but i think it would be wrong to see the commitment that we are giving to these nuclear negotiations is hard and parcel of our desire to see isil put out of business and stop committing the atrocities we see on a daily basis. this negotiation is worth doing in its own right. it is linked to the question of stopping iran and stopping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the region. if we start linking other things, that will not help.

it could spend -- spell the end of that negotiation. it is the right thing to do and the alternatives are worse. it would we very useful spinoff if that were the result of cheating that type of negotiations. if there are common enemies that is something to be looked at in the future but one is not linked to the other. >> thank you. i am a recent graduate of the school of foreign service. i went to ask about the snapback and how this mechanism would work especially because i can imagine six years down the line and some of the sanctions have

been lifted and there is increased business and germany is benefiting from it. how does the snapback work if we have slight violations that not everyone agrees with is a violation? will the snapback mechanism be tied to certain behaviors that iran commits? i just want to understand this mechanism. >> material region how do you do find it? >> the snapback, the idea is -- we did not want to give a veto right to some members for bringing back the sanctions. the french have invented a system which is the opposite which means that the sanctions

the snapback is automatic but if there is a vote in the opposite direction which changes [inaudible] from one side to another side. you cannot decide material breach. it would be to the commission to discuss this issue and then it would be brought back to the level of a political level.

[indiscernible] and basically we, not you, we made the sacrifice of the sanctions. we lost a lot of money because of the sanctions. not americans but -- because you're not any more on the market periods -- the market. we have done a very tough job. we have dominated in a very lawyerly way. i have -- [indiscernible] if the iranians are not going to abide by the commitments they are in's will be very strong, very keen and we work with the other members to reimpose the

sanctions. we are trying to fix, to have a mechanism which allows us to do it as quickly and effectively as is possible. we have not yet reached an agreement. it is very tempting -- difficult elements for an agreement. >> how can you have snapback be automatic? >> what we want to try is to -- a void is avoid the russians and the chinese saying we are against it. so that's what we want. we want a system which would be the opposite in a sense. it would be reinstated automatically.

it is a mechanism which is on to the veto of our friends. >> it is a majority rule. in the security council there is no germany. >> it is not p-5 plus one. >> the u.s. sanctions, the u.s. imposed them without asking anybody. we can organize the snap back easily. in the u.n. context. with you guys -- when you guys have the last word it is more difficult.

>> good point. let's see. the lady right here in the middle. >> sharon, voice of the moderate. a quick question. when i was here before for a panel, think barbara slaven was on it, she was saying that 70% of the iranian people wanted a peace deal. but the person who did the poll ended up in jail. ms. slavin: 70% of iranians wanted normal relationship with the u.s. >> now we have the nuclear deal, and the american mindset is more open-minded, maybe because of isis, i don't know. i'm wondering with each of your countries, what are your average people, and average american, the first time is open that these could be possible with cuba. what about you and your countries?

ms. slavin: i would think this diplomacy is popular. ambassador westmacott: all of our countries and governments have their own baggage, and that part of the world, sometimes with iran, sometimes with turkey. different countries where we have a history, or we don't have a history. i think you take the case of iran, public opinion in this country has been seared by the experience of the hostages blindfolded for 444 days. that was an appalling moment. in the case of the united kingdom, public opinion was appalled only couple of years ago that a bunch of government thugs broke into our embassy trash the place, destroyed it, made a filthy mess and so on. iranians have their own memories, some accurate, some not, of what foreign powers of done to their authority over the last few years. we all have a degree of baggage. i was in the case of the united kingdom, public opinion is not at a stage of being deeply worried about the concepts of a normalized relationship with iran. we go back a very long way.

others have talked about the historic links in their own companies, the iran oil industry was set up by british companies. we have deep roots in that sector. we have had our own political and business links. united kingdom was the dominant power in the persian gulf for a very long time. we go back a long way with all the countries in that region. i think public opinion -- is asked to support the kind of deal that our government is determined to negotiate, as long as it's a good deal and not a bad deal will not have a problem with the normalization of relations with iran. however, that said, i would think all of us, governments or public citizens will want to be seen iran behaving in different ways in the years to come thereafter. but you are not linked, but iranian bad behavior -- in my be human rights, in my be regional destabilization, it might be support of terrorist groups. we are looking for progress in those areas as well. ms. slavin: the gentleman right

there. >> i'm a fellow with the plowshares fund. my question is in regards to the middle east which ambassador wittig briefly talked upon. saudi arabia said that anything iran had they wanted to have too. that seems like an opportunity with a negative thing. if this deal shapes up and gives us confidence that iran will never develop a nuclear weapon why shouldn't we say saudi arabia, you are more than welcome to sign on to this. why not use it as a model for arms control in the middle east? ambassador araud: for me, it's the most worrying aspect of the agreement. that we have created a new status of the one your breakout

>> we will take you live, where we just introduced bernie sanders, independent candidate running for the democratic nomination. we take you there live. ♪ [applause] >> this is an emotional day for me.

it is not just what i will be announcing, but to see so many people here, and to hear what has been said. thank you very much. [applause] let me thank all of you, not only for being here today, but for the support you given me over the years as mayor of this beautiful city. as a congressman, and now as you they've senator. -- united states senator. [applause] senator sanders: i also want to thank my long time friends and supporters for all that they do, and for their very generous remarks made thanks also to jenny nelson for moderating this event and for incredible leadership.

i also want to thank my family my wife jane, for their love and support you in my beautiful seven grandchildren. you provide so much joy in my life. today, here in our small state a state that has lead this nation in so many ways, i am proud to announce my candidacy or presidents of the united states of america. [applause]

senator sanders: today, with your support of the support of millions of people throughout our country, we begin a political revolution to transform our country economically politically socially, and environmentally. [applause] senator sanders: today we stand here and say it loudly and clearly, enough is enough. this great nation and its government belong to all of the people, and not to a handful of billionaires. [applause] brothers and sisters now is not the time for thinking small.

now is not the time forced the same old same old establishment politics. now is the time for millions of working families to come together to revitalize american democracy, to add the collapse of our middle class, and to make certain that our children and grandchildren are able to enjoy a quality of life that brings them health, prosperity, security, and joy. and that once again makes the united states the leader in the world in the fight for economic and social justice, for environmental sanity and a brave world of peace. [applause] senator sanders: my fellow

americans, this country faces more serious levels today than in any time since the great depression, and if you include the planetary crisis of climate change, it may well be that the challenges we face now are more dire than at any time in the modern history of our country. and here is my promise to you for this campaign. not only will i fight to protect the working families of this country, but we are going to build a movement of aliens of americans who are prepared to stand up and fight back. [applause] senator sanders: we are going to take this campaign directly to the people in town meetings, door to door conversation, on

street corners and in social mediums. this week we are going to be in new hampshire, we are going to be in iowa, and we're going to be in minnesota. that is just the start of this campaign. [applause] senator sanders: let me be clear. this campaign is not about bernie sanders, it is not about hillary clinton clinton, it is not about jeb bush or anyone else in this campaign is about the needs of the american people . and the ideas and proposals that effectively address those people. as someone who has never run a negative political ads in my life -- [applause]

my campaign will not be driven by political gossip, or reckless personal attacks. [applause] senator sanders: this is what the american people want and deserve. these are serious times, we need serious debate. [applause] senator sanders: politics in a democratic society should not be treated as if it were a baseball game, a game show, or a soap opera. and i hope the media understands that as well. [applause] senator sanders: let me take a minute to touch on some of the issues that i will be focusing on in the coming months.

and then give you a brief outline of an agenda for america, an agenda which in fact will deal with these serious problem's and lead us to a better future. today we live in a nation which is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. but that reality means very little for most of us because almost all of the 12 is owned and controlled by a tiny handful of individuals. in america, we now have more income and wealth inequality that any other major country on earth, and the gap is growing wider and wider.

it is the great moralist issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, it is the great political issue of our time, and we will address it. [applause] senator sanders: let me be very clear. let the top 1% understand this. there is something profoundly wrong when the top 1/10 of 1% of its almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, and when 99% of all new income goes to the top 1%. there is something profoundly wrong when in recent years we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at

the same time as millions of americans are working longer hours for lower wages, and we have shamefully, the highest rates of childhood poverty of any country. there is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more welcome in this country is the bottom 130 million americans. this grotesque level of inequality is immoral, it is economics, it is unsustainable. this type of rigged economy is not what america is supposed to be about. this has got to change, and as your president, to gather we are going to change it. [applause]

senator sanders: but it is not just in common well in economy -- inequality. it is a tragic reality that in the last four years and great middle class of our country once the entire world, has and is hearing. despite its exploding technology and increased worker productivity, the median family income is almost $5,000 less today than it was in 1999. in our great state and all over this country, people are working on just one job and to john, three jobs, trying to cobble together some health care. that is not acceptable, we can and must do better.

the truth is that real unemployment is not five point 4%, which he read in the members, it is close to 11%. youth unemployment 17%. african american youth unemployment, off the charts. today, shamefully, we are 45 million people living in poverty, many of whom are working in low-wage jobs. in america today, despite the gains of the affordable care act, 35 million americans still lack any help interest -- health insurance. that is the reality of the middle class in america today. that is the reality not just for us, but for our kids and our grandchildren that we are going to change. [applause]

senator sanders: my fellow americans let me be as blunt as i can, and let me tell you what you already know. as a result of a disastrous supreme court decision, the american supreme court decision has been totally corrupted as a foundation of american democracy. mondays at essentially was that it was not good enough for the billionaires to own much of the economy, they can now own the united states government as well, and that is precisely what they are trying to do. what i learned in school, and i think the men and women look with their lives on the line to defend our country has

long known, it is not about billionaires being able to buy elections. it is not about the koch brothers and other incredibly wealthy individuals spending billions of dollars to elect candidates who will make the rich richer and everyone else poorer. according to media reports, if you can believe it, the koch brothers in this election cycle are prepared to spend more money than either the democratic or republican parties. that is not democracy, that is oligarchy. in vermont, at our town meetings, we know what democracy is about. one person, one vote. and that is the kind of political system we are going to fight for, and are going to achieve.

now when we talk about our responsibilities as human beings , there is nothing more important than leading this country and the entire planet in a way that is habitable for our kids and our grandchildren. the debate is over, the scientific community has spoken in a virtually unanimous voice. climate change is real, it is called right human activity, -- it is caused by human activity and it is already causing devastating problems in our country and around the world. and let's be clear. if we do not get our act together and have the united states lead the world in combating climate change, there will be more drought more families, more rising sea levels more floods, more

extreme weather disturbances. as human beings, we look out over distant horizons and appreciate the beauty we have on this planet. we are not going to allow the fossil fuel industry to destroy this time -- planet. [applause] senator sanders: brothers and sisters, it is no secret that there is massive discontent with politics in america today senator sanders:. in the last midterm elections and 63% of americans did not vote including 80% of young people. poland revolt tells us that our citizens no longer have confidence in our political institutions, and given the power of money in the political

process in general. they understand that their paint is not being heard in washington, and that people in washington and elected officials are much more concerned about the lobbyist and the billionaires that the sufferings of ordinary people. combating this political alienation this legitimate anger will not be easy. that is for sure. but that is exactly why we must do, if we are going to to this country around, and that is what this campaign is all about. [applause] and if we are going to bring people together, we need a simple straightforward

progressive agenda, which speaks to the needs of the american people and provides us with a vision of a very different america. what is that agenda? let me briefly tell you what i think. the agenda begins with jobs jobs, and more jobs. [applause] senator sanders: if we are serious about reversing the decline of the middle class, we need a major federal jobs program which puts millions of people back to work at good paying jobs. [applause] senator sanders: in a time when our roads, our bridges, our water systems, are real and air are decaying, the most effective way to rapidly create meaningful jobs is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. [applause]

senator sanders: and that is why introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over five years to modernize our countries physical infrastructure. infrastructure -- legislation that would retain 13 million good paying jobs. [applause] senator sanders: as your president i will lead the effort to make sure that legislation is passed. i will also continue to oppose our current trade policy. for decades president from both parties have supported trade agreements which have cost us millions of decent paying jobs as corporate america shuts down plans in vermont and throughout

this country and moved to low-wage countries. as president, my trade policies will break that cycle of agreement would enrich the new at the expense of the many. -- the few at the expense of the many. letters also be honest and acknowledge that today millions of american workers are now working for totally inadequate wages. the current federal minimum wage of seven dollars $.25 -- $ 7.25 is starvation and must be wraised. the minimum wage in this country must become a living wage, which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years.

our goal, this is not a radical idea, but our goal must be that any worker in this country who works 40 hours a week is not living in poverty. [applause] senator sanders: further, we must establish a equity for women workers. [applause] senator sanders: it is unconscionable that women are $.78 on the dollar compared to men who perform the same work. we must also revised our overtime standards, so those making $30,000 a year, who are working 50 hours a week get time and a half.

and we need paid sick leave and guaranteed vacation times for every worker in this country. [applause] this campaign, starting today is going to send a message to the billionaire class, and that is, you cannot have it all. you cannot get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. you cannot continue sending our jobs abroad while millions are looking for work. you cannot hide your profits in the cayman islands and other tax havens while they are our massive unmet need on every corner of this nation.

to the billionaire class, i say that your greed has got to end. he cannot take it vantage of all of the benefits of america, if you refuse to accept your responsibility. and that is why we need a tax system which is fair and progressive, which tells the wealthiest individuals and the largest corporations that they are going to begin to start to pay their fair share of taxes. [applause] senator sanders: when we talk about power, we talk about wall street. in my view, it is time to break up the largest financial institutions in this country.

wall street cannot continue to be an island unto it self gambling trillions in risky financial instruments while expecting the public to bail it out. if a bank is too big to fail, that bank is too big to exist. [applause] senator sanders: if we are serious about a progressive agenda that's because to the needs of working families, that talks about climate change, and the needs of our kids and the elderly, we must be focused on campaign-finance reform and the need for a constitutional amendment that overturns the disastrous citizens united

decision. i have said it before, and i will say it again, i will not nominate any justice to the supreme court who has not made it clear that he or she will love to overturn that disastrous decision which is undermining american democracy. longer term, we need to go further and establish public funding of elections. as i look to our future it is clear to me that the united states of america must lead the world in reversing climate change. we can do that by transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels for an energy efficiency and such sustainable

injuries -- energies such as when, geothermal, and biomass. [applause] senator sanders: brothers and sisters, the united states of america remains one of the only major countries on earth, but does not guarantee health care to all people as they -- despite the modest gains of the affordable care act there are still those who are underinsured. despite that record, we end up spending almost twice as much per capita on health care of any other nation.